FCC moves plan forward to allow paid priority on the Internet

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by ugahairydawgs, May 15, 2014.

  1. macrumors 68020

    ugahairydawgs

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    #1
  2. macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #2
    I mostly agree.

    However for video calling and VOIP getting the data delivered quickly is essential so perhaps that is worth a premium. That said it is also essential for AJAX dynamic web applications and they are pretty common.
     
  3. macrumors 68020

    Raid

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Location:
    Toronto
    #3
  4. macrumors 68000

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #4
    All the utilities, including the telecoms, need to be required to have a non-profit charter.
     
  5. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    May 27, 2009
    Location:
    FL
    #5
    So I guess you guys would agree with Senator Cruz on this issue. The FCC should be enforcing laws not creating them.

     
  6. macrumors G4

    Eraserhead

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #6
    So congress should pass a net neutrality law itself?
     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    TheHateMachine

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Location:
    Houston, TX
    #7
    A potential ban of all paid prioritization as well as common carrier is still on the table. Also, slowed service because your traffic is not prioritized is apparently not supposed to happen (Not sure how they will accomplish that unless there will be a section of "reserved" bandwidth). It is a mixed bag. OF course that could all be worthless butt patting in an attempt to sate the people who want common carrier and the likes.

    Nope.
     
  8. macrumors P6

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #8
    While I strongly disagree with the FCC ruling,passing this decision making off to congress would make it worse. You would have a TON of lobbyist paying off congress to do what might be worse things to the internet.

    Ted Cruz and the like making those decisions ?

    I don't think so.

    Congress should have oversight though.
     
  9. macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #9
    This is not enforced yet. This was just the initial vote, and public comments are due by July 15th. I suggest sending comments in, writing your Senator and Representative, as well as possibly proposing that the cable companies, since they are getting into internet and phone service, be classified as a Title II "Common Carrier" and be regulated like a utility.

    But we need to act on this and now is that time.

    BL.
     
  10. macrumors 68000

    Happybunny

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Location:
    's-Hertogenbosch Netherlands
    #10
    I'm glad I live this side of the water.:p

    Europe Votes For Net Neutrality In No Uncertain Terms

    The European Parliament has voted to protect net neutrality, limiting the power of telecoms providers to charge third parties for faster network access.

    Members of the European Parliament approved the legislation by 534 votes to 25, with 58 abstentions – clear support for Commission vice president Neelie Kroes, who has pushed strongly for the changes.

    Currently, only the Netherlands and Slovenia have net neutrality laws in place and some countries, such as the UK, are deeply unenthusiastic. Telecoms regulator BEREC says that several internet access providers across the region have been blocking or slowing down services such as Skype or Netflix NFLX +2.15%, with the Commission suggesting that as many as 100 million users may have been affected.

    Providers will now be allowed to slow or block internet access only to enforce a court order, preserve network security or prevent temporary network congestion. Even in these cases, meaures must be “transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate”, and mustn’t last longer than necessary.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmawool...certain-terms/
     
  11. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #11
    It is ironic that the vote went 3-2 and the 3 were democrats. I thought they were the ones pushing for net neutrality. Now they are the ones that want to kill it.
     
  12. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    #12

    democrats are owned by the movie and tv studios

    i'm against paid prioritization but it was netflix who started this whole thing trying to change a system that has been in place for almost 2 decades

    ----------


    what is that going to do, classifying them as common carriers?
     
  13. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    #13
    This is a SHAME. Not because of what it is now- certainly no one can argue that having a faster Netflix connection or youtube connection is a bad thing. BUT it's a shame because of what it can lead to.

    The big boys in Silicon Valley pay top dollar for the best, the little guy who's starting out can't afford it. His voice never gets seen. His voice never gets heard.

    That's NOT American :apple:
     
  14. macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #14
    Don't worry guys, the cable ISPs just want to sell you Internet access like they sell you TV channels.

    [​IMG]
     
  15. macrumors demi-god

    Shrink

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2011
    Location:
    New England, USA
    #15
    Source, please...
     
  16. macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #16

    Longtime Democratic Senator Chris Dodd heading up the MPAA is all the proof I need. Not to mention all the Dems who supported SOPA and PIPA.
     
  17. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    #17
    open secrets dot org

    check al franken's donor list. all the content people are deathly afraid of a huge comcast because that's a lot of lost revenue in case of a blackout
     
  18. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #18
    There are plenty of reasons to be afraid of a huge comcast.
     
  19. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2014
    #19
    WOW. This picture is mortifying. I see revolution if this becomes the internet.
     
  20. macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #20
    I have no idea what you are trying to say.

    We already have a monopoly, or, at best, a duopoly, at most people's homes. What we are now seeing is the development of a horizontal monopoly on cable. It the cable monopoly also owns/controls large swaths of content, we have a genuine, you-should-be-frightened, free speech problem.

    We have a genuine problem developing, but, I find myself frustrated by the use of the word "internet" in these discussions. Core internet carriers may find it convenient to offer different service classes, so that phone calls may be carried via VOIP over their cores. Or, a class of service that allows loss-free distribution of network video content across the country. It is a perfectly harmless market-driven business decision. There is no reason why "net neutrality" rules should stop carriers from differentiating service for different kinds of traffic. In fact, a lot of money has been spent over the last ten years making this practical, because bulk data transfer has different requirements than, for example, voice.

    This is entirely different than a cable monopoly using its market power to restrict deliberately the amount of traffic from sources that don't agree to pay extra rent, or, reduce the viability of content that they do not control. The "last mile" cable provider is not "the internet" any more than AOL was "the internet" in the mid-90's.

    The following article explains the situation fairly well, but, is much more sympathetic to the last mile ISP's (Comcast, AT&T, Verizon, TWC) than it is to the core carriers:

    http://www.cnet.com/news/comcast-vs-netflix-is-this-really-about-net-neutrality/

    Other articles are much more skeptical about the ISP's behavior:

    http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/level-3-blames-internet-slowdowns-on-isps-refusal-to-upgrade-networks/

    What to do about monopoly abuse is not obvious in this case. Technologies have been changing radically over the last 20 years, and, I'm sure Libertarians would prefer to let new technology correct existing monopolistic abuse. That does not seem to be working very well the last few years, though.
     
  21. macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #21
    The net neutrality battle

    An interesting article on how cable companies are succeeding in restricting competition:


    http://www.electronista.com/articles/14/06/04/verizon.comcast.anti.compete.agreements.other.legislation.stymie.process/
     
  22. macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #22
  23. macrumors 6502a

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #23
    Net neutrality is not enough

    In Forbes (of all places!):


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/garymyer/2014/06/09/net-neutrality-isnt-enough/
     
  24. macrumors 68040

    bradl

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2008
    #24
    Looks like the Blues are wanting to take a stand. Slim to no chance that the Reds will let it get anywhere. This is one of those chances where I really hope they (read: I want them to) prove me wrong.

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/alltechcon...ill-to-ban-internet-fast-lanes-net-neutrality

    BL.
     
  25. macrumors Core

    MacNut

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2002
    Location:
    CT
    #25
    Just treat ISP's like public utilities. They can't hide behind being a cable company that offers internet service.
     

Share This Page